[LTP] [PATCH v3] Many pages: Document fixed-width types with ISO C naming

[Alejandro Colomar]

On 8/25/22 09:44, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 8/25/22 07:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 01:36:10AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>> But from your side what do we have?  Just direct NAKs without much
>>> explanation.  The only one who gave some explanation was Greg, and he
>>> vaguely pointed to Linus's comments about it in the past, with no 
>>> precise
>>> pointer to it.  I investigated a lot before v2, and could not find 
>>> anything
>>> strong enough to recommend using kernel types in user space, so I 
>>> pushed v2,
>>> and the discussion was kept.
>>
>> So despite me saying that "this is not ok", and many other maintainers
>> saying "this is not ok", you applied a patch with our objections on it?
>> That is very odd and a bit rude.
>>
>>> I would like that if you still oppose to the patch, at least were 
>>> able to
>>> provide some facts to this discussion.
>>
>> The fact is that the kernel can not use the namespace that userspace has
>> with ISO C names.  It's that simple as the ISO standard does NOT
>> describe the variable types for an ABI that can cross the user/kernel
>> boundry.
> 
> I understand that.  But user-space programs are allowed to use the 
> standard types when calling a syscall that really uses kernel types.
> 
> IMHO, it should be irrelevant for the user how the kernel decides to 
> call a 64-bit unsigned integer, right?
> 
> Or do you mean that some of the pages I modified

... are intended mostly for kernel-space programmers?

> 
>>
>> Work with the ISO C standard if you wish to document such type usage,
>> and get it approved and then we would be willing to consider such a
>> change.  But until then, we have to stick to our variable name types,
>> just like all other operating systems have to (we are not alone here.)
>>
>> Please revert your change.
> 
> Thanks for asking nicely.
> 
> Since there's ongoing discussion, and I don't want to make it look like 
> ignoring it, I've reverted the patch for now.  If I apply it again, I 
> hope that it will be with some more consensus, as I've always tried to 
> do.  Sorry if I was a bit irascible yesterday.  Shit happens.
> 
> TL;DR:  Patch reverted; asking nicely works. =)
> 
>>
>> greg k-h
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alex
> 

-- 
Alejandro Colomar
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20220825/713fe91b/attachment.sig>